I refuse to believe that zombies are better than vampires because there are no upsides to being a zombie. A zombie is slow and dumb without a brain. They are easily tricked where as vampires are quick, strong and have super reflexes.

Z's come from Haiti[1] and are mainly black[2]. If you look at the threads on stormfront.com all types of experts on race show that blacks are superior athletes to whites, therefore z's are actually faster and stronger than the upper middle class whit kids playing dress up. (AKA V's).

Z's also have more balls than V's. You can shoot the Z next to them and they won't flinch or relent in their pursuit. Where as V's are scared of the sun, mirrors, garlic, crosses etc.

Z's are also smarter than V's. If you look at the movies you can see that Z's typically take over the entire world and the best humans can hope for is to survive. While the the in V movies is to kill the V. In V movies these powerful creatures fall to man, While in Z films, Z's clearly are in charg

There is no chance a zombie can be stronger, faster or smarter than a vampire.
First, of all zombies don it have brains there for there is no way a zombie is vampire. Next, vampires are faster than the average human as they do not have to breath making them able to run much faster and never have to stop however zombies are rotted and some have a arm or a leg missing. How is it possible for a creature with possibly one leg to be able to run at all.
I agree with the point that zombies are braver than vampires how ever this is just because they have no sense of feeling and are not smart enough to run away if they no they are going to die.

I've also shared my arguments for why Z's are smarter and have received no rebuttals, another dropped argument.

My opponent offers new arguments in the final round which should be disregarded. I've proved Z's have brains by showing they are smarter than V's. It should also be noted that Z's are still human. My opponent is saying that because Z's are black they aren't human. Well I got news for my opponent. Black people are human also and according to most doctors humans need a brain to function.

I'm the only one to use sources and should win there. My opponent has been super racist so I should get conduct points and my arguments have all been dropped so I should get that also.

My opponent has stated that because some Z's are missing limbs that they are somehow slower but any demographic like rich white kids (aka V's) also have handicap people.

My thoughts on it are relatively simple, but we must first define "better". I think there are subjective benefits to being a zombie which a vampire lacks, but a vampire is more objectively capable.

For example, a zombie's mind is so simple that it does not feel pain, has no anxiety, and has no fear of death. It has only one goal: to eat the flesh of the living. It does not care for anything else. There is a kind of beauty to this type of existence that a vampire lacks entirely, as it still has self-consciousness. On that basis, a zombie is better. I think the same reason we find so much pleasure in domesticated cats and dogs is due to the simplicity and honesty of their consciousness, and they seem to have a greater potential for happiness in that regard.

Of course, a zombie is nowhere near as capable as a vampire in terms of what it can or cannot do. Though a zombie can be present in sunlight, it has no edge on a vampire. A vampire is in every way more cunning, intelligent and powerful than a zombie. So I wouldn't argue that a vampire is better in that respect, even though a zombie is ultimately a more healthy, happy and well-adjusted being --- like a house cat.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was even. Pro was a little inappropriate and con was a little condescending. Pro gets arguments because he actually had a case, and con dropped the important arguments and focused on the fact that zombies don't use their brains (which technically they do for bodily control, but pro didn't bring that up, so that's not a point of consideration). Also, pro actually used sources, giving pro the most reliable sources.

Reasons for voting decision: Sorry Con, but you got owned on technicalities and for not responding to the majority of Pros arguments. As such arguments to Pro. Also, if you wanted Pro to make an argument in the first round it was essential to state that in your opening statement. Normally, I would deduct conduct for that, but as you are new I am letting it slide this time. Lastly, sources must go to Pro as they were presented.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is flippant, but sufficient. Pro gives me reasons specifically to prefer zombies to vampires. Con gives me reasons she prefers vampires, but never links those reasons to why they're objectively better. Pro's arguments may be subjective, but at least he tries to get there, and with evidence, he does a substantially better job. Hence, I give both arguments and sources to Pro.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. I was almost going to give this to Pro due to Con's Round 2. Being snippy is unflattering. Ultimately though, this is tied. S&G - Tie. Both made spelling errors. So neither are awarded these points. Arguments - Pro. Unfortunately Con did drop some arguments. This allowed Pro to maintain his case in some areas as they stood unchallenged. I feel like both sides made some pretty baseless assumptions, but Con's were just unfounded with absolutely no proof given. Whereas Pro did utilize proofing via sources and was ultimately able to maintain his position. Due to this, both arguments and sources are awarded to Pro.